DAVID Beckham is something of a phenomenon in my life. When I was a younger man there were myriad reasons to loathe the profound and peerless talent that the Manchester United and England captain possessed. For a Scot and a season ticket holder at Arsenal, Becks (as he is so innovatively nicknamed in true intellectual footballing style) the East London-born virtuoso athlete had everything a man could get (including a lucrative global advertising contract from Gillette). In his 20-year career he won 19 major trophies, becoming the first Englishman to win league titles in four different countries. While he played at Real Madrid his legs were insured by Lloyds for £100 million; surely considerably more than Danny McGrain’s beard ...
David Beckham had the looks of a Grecian god; the inked physique of an athlete at the very height of his awesome ball-bending powers. He is an underwear model, desired in almost equal part by men and women (and no doubt a few household pets). His wife is also a hugely successful, almost equally iconic, pop star and fashion, who (while unable to dance and sing) was something of an icon to a generation of young girls who sought power. His charitable works are legion. He has been a UNICEF ambassador for more than a decade, joining up at the height of his fame rather than leaving it till after he retired. His patronage of the Elton John Foundation, Malaria No More and a panoply of other charities shows that he is more than a little committed to the notion of “giving something back”.
I mean, as if that wasn’t enough he had a film named after him. (This would have been marginally less hateful had it not been for the fact that the writer/director of that film, Bend It Like Beckham, was my cousin, Gurinder Chadha.)
I think any reasonably-minded person would subscribe to my deeply envious yet well argued hatred of David Beckham. But then …
I changed. Maybe I matured and moved away from petty club/country rivalries. Perhaps I saw beyond the marketing manipulation and managed to unmask the man and his mutability. Whatever the reason, the older me found myself not only accepting Becks's talent and ability but actively liking him. I found myself gradually becoming more and more passionate in my defence of one of the greatest Number 7s to wear the shirt in the modern era.
And it seems that Becks has never been more in need of my stalwart defence than now. Having recently taken a cameo role in Guy Ritchie’s latest slickly stylish movie, King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword, playing the battle-hardened swordsman Trigger, it seems the only thing Becks is bending on-screen is credibility. Movie-goers seem to have universally panned the performance. I’ve watched it and while Beckham is unlikely to be bothering BAFTA or alerting the Academy in terms of his acting prowess, I have seen worse cinematic performances. (Not many, I have to confess, but a few.)
Many might question why Becks felt the need to act. He seems to have a fairly wide, polymath portfolio of interests. I’m 48; I hope to be working till the day they pop me in the box. Footballers are finished around 40. They have decades stretching out in front of them, years to fill with punditry, themed restaurants and hair care products. Why not try some acting?
Unlike his once team-mate Eric Cantona, David doesn't command charisma, he has no great screen presence. He looks edible, as always, but that isn’t always enough. It really is a little cringeworthy. But having said that, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one day an older, wiser Beckham might offer an altogether different performance. It’s worth remembering the journey this man has made in his life, a journey he has made with great aplomb, elegance and a sense of self that far outstrips those around him.
This was a poor lad from the East End of London that shot to global fame and turned out not to be a complete bampot. He turned out to be a thoroughly decent guy who just cannae act. It’s hardly life and death.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here